In re MH2018-002453
| Decision Date | 27 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-MH 18-0038,1 CA-MH 18-0038 |
| Parties | IN RE: MH2018-002453 |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
The Honorable Aryeh D. Schwartz, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Law Offices of Trent R. Buckallew, P.C., Tempe
By Trent R. Buckallew
Counsel for Appellant
By Anne C. Longo, Joseph Branco
Counsel for Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISIONJudge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.
¶1 I.A. appeals the trial court's order mandating inpatient mental health treatment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's order. In re MH2014-002674, 238 Ariz. 188, 190-91, ¶ 9 (App. 2015). On April 14, 2018, I.A.'s mother called 911 requesting help because I.A. had barricaded her and two children into a bedroom of her house. Several officers responded and were able to remove them through the bedroom window. The officers then entered through the window and, when they opened the bedroom door, found the hallway "filled about waist deep" with objects from around the house.
¶3 Officers found I.A. in the kitchen and I.A. then sat on the floor by the refrigerator. The officers informed I.A. that he was not under arrest and that they only needed to investigate why his family was barricaded in the bedroom. I.A. would not substantively respond and "just continued to repeat himself asking for credentials and asking if he was being arrested." I.A. stared blankly and would not look the officers in the face.
¶4 I.A. stood up and began to walk to the front door of the house and the officers restrained him and brought him to a marked patrol car. When they did, I.A. "locked his body up," and did not speak another word to the officers. An officer then took I.A. to a mental health facility.
¶5 The facility petitioned the trial court to detain and evaluate I.A., which the court granted. After the evaluation, the facility petitioned the court to order treatment for I.A., attaching the affidavits of two medical doctors who evaluated him. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 36-533(B). The first doctor diagnosed I.A. with "Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum And Other Psychotic Disorder," and the second diagnosed him with "Unspecified Psychotic Disorder." Each agreed that I.A. was persistently oracutely disabled and would require inpatient treatment, but that he would not voluntarily submit to it.
¶6 The court held a hearing on April 25, 2018, at which it heard from two of the police officers and I.A. Officer Goodman testified that he had interacted with I.A. for about 20 minutes and I.A. would not obey commands, "just stared off," and would only offer the same two questions, repeatedly asking officers for identification and if he was under arrest. Officer Dacquisto testified similarly. He added that he offered to give I.A. additional identification showing he was a police officer, but I.A. still did not respond and just stared. I.A. testified that he "had just started to pick up and move boxes" in front of the bedroom door and that his mother and sister were able to move freely around the house.
¶7 At the end of the hearing, the trial court ordered I.A. to undergo a treatment program of no more than 365 days, with no more than 180 of those being inpatient. I.A. timely appeals.
¶8 We note that because more than one year has elapsed since the court ordered a one-year treatment program, the case is moot. Nevertheless, we will consider this case because of I.A.'s ongoing interests related to having an involuntary mental health commitment on his record. In re MH2011-000914, 229 Ariz. 312, 314, ¶ 6 n.5 (App. 2012) (citing In re MH 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. 160, 164-65, ¶ 12 n.3 (App. 2008)); see also Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 617-18, ¶ 9 (App. 2012) ().
¶9 We review the interpretation and application of statutes de novo, In re MH 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. at 165, ¶ 15, and require strict compliance because of the liberty interests implicated by involuntary commitment. In re MH 2006-000490, 214 Ariz. 485, 488, ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (citing In re Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct. No. MN 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. 351, 353, ¶ 8 (App. 2002)). We review the trial court's factual findings for an abuse of discretion. In re MH2015-003266, 240 Ariz. 514, 515, ¶ 7 (App. 2016). We will only set aside a factual finding if it is clearly erroneous or "unsupported by substantial evidence." In re MH 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. at 165, ¶ 15.
¶10 Once a petition for court-ordered treatment is filed, the court must generally hold a hearing "within six business days." A.R.S. § 36-535(B). At the hearing, the court must hear testimony from two physicians and "the testimony of two or more witnesses acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder, which may be satisfied by astatement agreed on by the parties." A.R.S. § 36-539(B). These "acquaintance witnesses" give the court a different perspective of the patient than those of the examining doctors. In re Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct. No. MN 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. at 355, ¶ 24. An acquaintance witness need only have "first hand knowledge of the patient at the time the patient allegedly suffers from a mental disorder." In re MH 2008-002596, 223 Ariz. 32, 36, ¶ 17 (App. 2009).
¶11 I.A. argues on appeal that the petitioner failed to present substantial evidence that I.A. suffered from mental illness because Goodman failed to testify to sufficient supporting facts. Goodman's testimony substantially supported the court's finding that I.A. suffered from a mental disorder. Goodman testified that in their time together, I.A. after officers answered that he was not. This is "relevant, personal knowledge of the mental disorder alleged." In re MH2012-002480, 232 Ariz. 421, 423, ¶ 9 (App....
To continue reading
Request your trial